“Tourists cannot be learned,” the Czech Mountain Service provided information about 1 of its fresh interventions. And it happened precisely on Thursday in Snow White. Rescuers had to go to rescue tourists, 1 of whom went to the highest highest of the Czech Republic in short shorts – we read today's confederate service Onetu (23.12.2022).
Not just tourists. Jack Żakowski too... Although I would say the weather is poor, we are threatened by further regulation of unrighteousness on a large scale or by a apparent victory, due to the fact that Kaczyński has so devastated you that he can effectively block any repair of Żakowski, as if nothing, so apart from himself, due to the fact that he feels like an impenetrable, self-centered kid confuses the listeners in his head and thinks his criticism, detached from the facts and responsibilities of reservations and remarks about the European Union and unifying the opposition without respect to the consequences of his malcontent. He assured me in this opinion leading me as all Friday Morning at TOK FM (23.12.2022.).
Experienced respective decades of practice, writer and publicist, lecturer and mentor in a number of journalism departments, head of the cathedral, noble left-wing moralist of politics, origin of opinions for some, mention point for others, Jacek Żakowski, as usual, came to the studio with pre-set alsos and for 2 hours consistently, to us listeners, was certain to communicate them in the voice and invited guests first selected and later urged to confirm their rations and as they doubted or had a different opinion, he informed the conversation and so on. The standard for this generation of sureties cannot be torn off in Polish free media.
Today, Żakowski focused on the under-representation, he believes, of the European Union's commitment to Ukraine, the insufficient, even embarrassingly low value of European aid to those fighting the Russian invasion and all this as part of a comment after yesterday's visit to legislature and the White House. It was there that Biden summed up the US aid to Ukraine to date – over USD 50 billion and declared its continuation, which served as a pretext for Żakovsky to drive out the Union its “marne”, nothing crucial 18 billion EUR...
The translation of the invited Euro MP, erstwhile Prime Minister and Minister of abroad Affairs Cimoszewicz, who explained the differences between the structure and practice of 2 completely different budgets – the Union and the United States; various sources of gross (in the Union it is primarily a permanent, GDP-dependent membership contribution), various expenditures (in the case of the Union budget a limitation to the implementation of 7 years of rigid Community programmes) or even specified a tiny thing as the anticipation of replenishing the budget, creating deficits, the anticipation of free, decently unlimited lending of money by the US and the prohibition of the same under EU law... no, Żakowski forgot about it, excluded this part of his memory (because I do not believe that he had always heard of these differences and that he did not know it...), due to the fact that he came to the studio with his original, morning thesis and no facts of this "clearness" of his view of matters could not obscure. Brussels elites, kunktatorian, overly rich and comfortable Europe, erstwhile so much inequality... He didn't talk about neoliberalism today. He did not mention the position of Ukraine as a candidate for a associate of the European Union, more than 90% of the support for Ukraine's entry into the EU among Ukrainian society and more than 6 million. Ukrainians and Ukrainians were granted hospitality and assistance in Europe after 24 February 2022.
He besides forgot that alongside these EU 18 billion there are next billions that flow straight from the EU associate States' money to Ukraine. This is the budget structure of the United Europe. There are independent budgets of the associate States of the Union and they guarantee the functioning of the States and is clearly defined in the Treaties by the budget of the Union as being designed to guarantee the coherence and implementation of joint improvement programmes by those States. Żakowski did not bow to sum up the scale of Union and individual associate States' assistance, due to the fact that this would not fit his imaginary thesis. With sound reasoning and with journalistic integrity, this has small in common. Yes, the USA is the leader of the West and the leader in Ukraine's aid, mainly political and military aid, but Europe, the Union and associate States, including Poland as well as the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland (countries outside the Union) as well as Canada, Australia, Japan in this crucial alliance are and "contribute" solidly and this underpins the consequence of the full democratic West to Russian aggression and allows Ukraine defends itself and we hope to win. Żakowski, I think, from worship for himself and his originality forgot about it and what is worse, sent in ether a message other which unfortunately many can confuse in their heads. This could have happened even against Żakowski's intentions, due to the fact that he most likely only wanted to be "scathedly shaken" but he forgot even what.
Let Żakowski think and say what he wants – any will say and will support freedom of speech, freedom of thought and judgment. But it's not that simple... Żakowski should and most likely knows more than most people about the subject he has decided to talk about. Why, then, do I feel, is misleading them? Is it sleazy, or is it specified a large conviction of the importance of its thought that it can ignore facts and data, to freely spread its full subjective, far from reality communicative or how it utilized to say “narration”? It's a confusion of roles. What is different is commenting on reality and something else creating it, and without being liable for it, erstwhile the road leads astray.
It is akin with the second thread, which Żakowski has late been operating more intensively. So it was present at TOK FM this morning. With a stubbornness worthy of another matter, he repeatedly returns, criticizes and undermines the plan of 1 common list of democratic forces in the upcoming elections. This case is well known and close to me. We even late invited Jacek Żakowski to meet with our electoral expert Andrzej Machowski to exchange arguments in a calm, factual atmosphere, present the results of polling opinions and draw the most likely scenarios. Żakowski got acquainted with the results of analyses, arguments behind the common list and did not discuss facts. He mainly said what he thought would be “better”, what he feared or wanted to “be” and what was “not.” specified idealistic wishful reasoning abstracted from the hard realities of “here and now” in Poland ruled by Kaczyński, the consequence of the existing ordination and the real image of political divisions and elections in society. But he seemed to realize our arguments.
Nothing more wrong. Just as he missed the actual contribution to the aid Ukraine of the associate States of the Union and omitted the specificity and differences between the EU budget and the US budget, so in the case of the joint list and its criticism it ignores the consequences of the next election defeat of the democrats, our analyses and conclusions and uses only its arguments and specifically the United Surveys discussed in Virtual Poland on electoral preferences in the context of 1 or more letters of today's opposition. Żakowski is pleased to present and advance investigation results, which indicate that in the case of a common list, any voters willing to vote for opposition parties starting from separate, independent lists declare not to participate in the vote. A joint list causes voters to leave – says Żakowski. Of course, they are, too, but the problem lies entirely elsewhere and is completely different. The thing in the adopted methodology of research, which either Żakowski is not curious at all or consciously ignores it.
In the investigation that Żakowski uses to present his was besides adopted lethal for what they were expected to check the way the respondents were selected. From what we have learned about the methodology, we have first divided voters into those who want to take part in the elections and those who do not intend to vote. Simplifyingly, by rejecting those who do not want to vote, only those who want to vote in respective options, including the common list, were asked. Of course, any of them said that they would not, due to the fact that they would always be like this, but there was no more immense set of people (+/- 50%) who could even talk about voting on the common list, due to the fact that looking at what is happening now they declared that they would not vote. If “something” changes, what will they do? We inactive don't know. With this method the consequence could NOT be different.
The largest group of voters in Poland have been non-voters for years. The draft common list is mostly addressed to them. In this study, thanks to the method used, it can be said that this largest group, time variable, hard to describe, fluctuating, but having a decisive impact on the results was not taken into account at all. The common list is primarily about expanding the ellipse of voters, who, in part, now declare that they will not vote, because... after all, they may be disgusted by idle disputes within the opposition, its deficiency of cause, the ability to act together. It is not hard to realize the reactions of people, it is harder to examine their universality and even harder erstwhile the common list is in the form of a task (password) and not a real political existence.
Electoral experience (events and election results of 1989 and 2019) teaches that strong polarization, a clear choice mobilises people to participate in elections (events can increase by more than 10% and that is over 3 million voters) and the advantages of winning unification can bring big, expected results (elections ’89). The electoral order makes it possible to scope more than 62% of the vote would give a common list of pro-European democratic forces over 307 mandates, i.e. the constitutional majority and the anticipation of effective repair of Poland. This is our political thesis supported by investigation and the current trend of political sympathy. The investigation that Żakowski cites by making his stories at all specified a situation through the methodology utilized does not verify. To Żakowski it most likely suffices, so simply, humanly, that he personally “does not like” Tusk, due to the fact that “something” and on this he bases all his narrative. The problem is that at the second level there is an effective election triumph and repair of Poland and he forgets it.
By the way, we are dealing with a serious general problem of modernity: the quality of the moment-to-time and indeed in a crucial way affecting the opinion of people of the many results of the commissioned research, of which the methodology we know nothing, and after all, everyone who is curious in it although a small is aware that the results of specified investigation depend on the kind of test, the manner and order of questions asked and the formulas used. We are moving in a planet constantly being the subject on the 1 hand of qualitative and quantitative investigation but on the another hand the subject of continuous influence on collective and individual emotions, expectations, fears and choices. In space there are countless sets of data, numbers, percentages, and usually the methods of investigating and counting that lead to these data are omitted. And you hear it all the time: “as it is from research” and there is simply a conclusion, only more and more frequently even those who say that about the engineering of these investigation know nothing. This causes no little chaos in many heads, as this 1 arose after today's morning proceeding of those who spoke with full conviction of the "wisdom" of Żakowski.
